Özdilek &Bulunuz / TÜFED-TUSED/ 6(2) 2009 24

Journal of
TÜRK FEN EĞİTİMİ DERGİSİ TURKISH SCIENCE EDUCATION
Yıl 6, Sayı 2, Ağustos 2009 Volume 6, Issue 2, August 2009

http://www.tused.org

The Effect of a Guided Inquiry Method on

Pre-service Teachers’ Science Teaching Self-Efficacy Beliefs
Zehra ÖZDİLEK1, Nermin BULUNUZ1
1
Dr., Uludağ University, Faculty of Education, Dept. of Primary Education, Bursa-TURKEY

Received: 20.06.2008 Revised: 12.03.2009 Accepted: 16.03.2009

The original language of article is English (v.6, n.2, August 2009, pp.24-42)

ABSTRACT
The aim of this study was to examine the effectiveness of a guided inquiry method for science
teaching on elementary pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs. In the study a pretest/posttest one
group research design was used. The study sample that consisted of 101 second year pre-service
elementary teachers who are registered to a science laboratory course in the 2008 Spring semester. At
the beginning of the study, the Elementary Science Teaching Efficacy Belief Instrument (STEBI) was
completed by the participants. A 14-week science laboratory course was taken by the learners that was
designed to use a guided inquiry teaching method with heavy reliance on the use of science process
skills. At the end of the course the STEBI was again completed by the pre-service teachers. The data
were analyzed by using paired sample t-test with the SPSS 16.00 program at the 0.01 significance level.
Focus group interviews were also conducted with 10 groups of participants after they completed the
course. Qualitative and quantitative findings indicated that levels of participants’ efficacy expectations
and outcome expectations on posttest scores were higher than the pretest scores. The paper also presents
the effectiveness of a guided inquiry method to increase the sense of self-efficacy beliefs of pre-service
teachers in science teaching.

Keywords: Self-Efficacy Beliefs; Guided Inquiry Teaching; Science Teaching; Pre-service Teachers.

INTRODUCTION
The term “self-efficacy” was proposed by Bandura (1986) and defined as the
“judgment of one’s capacity to accomplish a certain level of performance” (p.391). It
seems to imply a degree of preparedness by virtue of training, experience, or talent
(Housego, 1992). According to Bandura’s (1981) theory of social learning, an individual’s
self-efficacy refers to that person’s judgments about how well one can organize and
perform an action that has unpredictable and stressful components.
Bandura (1977) described two critical components of self-efficacy. The first
component is “efficacy expectation,” which represents the belief in one’s ability to
successfully perform the behavior. The second component of self-efficacy is “response-
outcome expectancy,” which is the belief that the performance of the behavior will have a
desirable outcome. Bandura (1997) focused a number of studies of teacher behavior and
found that teachers who have a high sense of self-efficacy have a strong desire to teach,
make efforts to motivate students and provide students with guidance. At the same time,
teachers with low self-efficacy spend less time on instruction, make little effort to
motivate students, and have an authoritarian approach. Teachers with higher self-efficacy
 Özdilek &Bulunuz / TÜFED-TUSED/ 6(2) 2009 25

in a particular subject perform better and are more likely to be interested in a career in that
field, persevere in difficult situations, and see complexity as a challenge rather than a
threat (Ketelhut, 2007) and have a high degree of confidence in their teaching abilities
(Camgöz & Tektaş, 2008). Likewise, Bıkmaz (2004) points out that the level of self-
efficacy of teachers directly affects their practices in classrooms with students. The author
also argues that teachers with higher self-efficacy are filled with passion of teaching
compared to teachers with lower self-efficacy. Pajares (1992) also discussed the
behavioral differences between teachers who have high and low senses of self-efficacy
beliefs and choose specific strategies to enhance learning. Teachers with lower self-
efficacy are less likely to do the above and more likely to equate failure to bad luck and
poor ability (Ketelhut, 2007) and presume that a problem is more complex than it is
(Pajares, 1992).
Similarly, most of these studies agree that negative feelings overshadow
achievement in science as an influence on science teaching self-efficacy (Tosun, 2000).
Many teachers lack a sense of school science self-efficacy (Bencze & Upton, 2006;
Palmer, 2006), which is an important predictor of performance in classroom teaching
(Yılmaz-Tüzün & Topçu, 2008). Unfortunately, teachers may not be equally effective
(Enochs & Riggs, 1990) and avoid teaching science (Bencze & Upton, 2006) largely
because of their inexperience and lack of confidence with the subject.
This is one of the important issues in teaching science. Elementary school teachers
are responsible for teaching the entire science curriculum, including various biology,
chemistry, physics, and earth science subjects at different grade levels. Over the past four
decades, numerous studies have been conducted to examine levels of science teaching
self-efficacy beliefs among pre-service teachers’ (Akbaş & Çelikkaleli, 2006; Bencze &
Upton, 2006; Bursal, 2008; Moseley, Reinke, & Bookout, 2002; Palmer, 2006; Plourde,
2002; Schoon & Boone, 1998; Tosun, 2000) and pre-school teacher candidates’ (Vural &
Hamurcu, 2008) .
In this regard, a considerable amount of research has also focused on how to improve
self-efficacy among pre-service teachers. Several factors and strategies have been
identified that have the potential to increase self-efficacy of pre-service teachers. These
studies looked into the effects of many dimensions of science teaching and teacher
preparation, including the use of an inquiry approach (Jarrett, 1999; Ketelhut, 2007),
projects with individual children (Flick, 1990); hands-on, minds-on teaching experiences
(Pedersen & McCurdy, 1992; Vural & Hamurcu, 2008; Weinburgh, 2007), student
teaching experiences (Palmer, 2006) a responsive classroom approach (Rimm-Kaufman &
Sawyer, 2004), site-based approach (Wingfield & Ramsey, 1999), drama-based action
research (Bencze & Upton, 2006); and science knowledge level (Schoon & Boone, 1998).
Generally, findings of all the studies listed above showed that pre-service teachers who
reported using more of the intervention factors reported greater self-efficacy beliefs. This
means, therefore, that science teaching self-efficacy is amenable to change depending on
the experiences of the teacher.
A number of other studies found that well-designed science methods courses that are
generally taught at the third year in a program can be successful at raising levels of science
teaching self-efficacy (Flick, 1990; Morrell & Carroll, 2003; Palmer, 2006; Utley,
Moseley & Bryant, 2005; Watters & Ginns, 1995). In his longitudinal study, Palmer
(2006) worked with pre-service teachers and looked at the effectiveness of a science
methods course on their self-efficacy beliefs and their performance in their student
teaching with students. The researcher found that the course had increased pre-service
teachers’ beliefs about their ability to perform teaching behaviors even after only 11
months of instruction. Palmer (2006) also interviewed his students and reported that there
 Özdilek &Bulunuz / TÜFED-TUSED/ 6(2) 2009 26

were strong positive changes in self-efficacy as a result of the course. Similarly, the
research conducted by Utley et al. (2005) indicated that as science teacher education in a
methods course progressed, science teaching efficacy significantly increased.
In addition to the methods and treatments that have positive impacts on pre-service
teachers’ science teaching self-efficacy beliefs, the adventures beyond the classroom
(ABC) program was used as another strategy by Moseley et al. (2002) in an attempt to
enhance pre-service teachers’ attitudes toward self-efficacy and outcome expectancy.
However, they found that the ABC program was not effective and the participants’ self-
efficacy beliefs were higher before the program than after. Also, their findings indicated
that for the control group the level of science self-efficacy remained unchanged as a result
of the methods class, but dropped significantly approximately 7 weeks after teaching.
Similarly, Plourde (2002) stated that student teaching did not affect second year pre-
service elementary teachers’ science teaching self efficacy and outcome expectancy
beliefs. Also, Bursal (2008) stated that the pre-service elementary teachers in their third
year of pre-service programs did not increase their personal teaching efficacy beliefs
scores (PSTE) after completing a science methods course, but slightly decreased instead.
This suggests that not all approaches to teaching science methods will increase students’
science teaching self efficacy.
Plourde (2002) and Watters and Ginns (1995) that certain attributes of teachers’
professional identities, such as behaviors, values, and beliefs, may be formed on their early
experience as a student teacher. These attributes may be affected by science teaching self-
efficacy. Since many teachers formulate their self-efficacy beliefs much earlier than they
actually start teaching these subjects, it is very useful to determine and adjust their levels
of self-efficacy in the early years of their elementary teacher training programs. Therefore,
in the current study, a guided inquiry, which has a potential to be one of the factors listed
above that increase self-efficacy of pre-service teachers, was applied to second year
students in the science laboratory course.
A continuum of different methods of science teaching is explained in many resources
in the science education literature (Martin, 1997; Furtak, 2006). At one side of the
continuum, there is a traditional, direct instruction didactic technique where the teacher
tells factual information to learners (Furtak, 2006). At the other side of the continuum
there is open-ended scientific inquiry where learners design and conduct their
investigations by themselves. In the more open ended approaches to inquiry-based
instruction, there might be problems such as whether the students are clear about the
learning intention, whether they have high enough motivation, and whether they have
suitable cognitive and experiential skills. Guided scientific inquiry teaching takes place
somewhere between the two extremes, where students are guided through a process of
scientific investigation in a learning-by-doing model. In guided inquiry, the teacher sets
the direction and suggests open-ended activities, which the children pursue to find out
what they can discover and inquire into what they don’t understand (Martin, 1997). This
method is a student-centered and activity-based teaching strategy where a teacher uses a
variety of instructional materials to help students discover possible and testable solutions
to their defined scientific investigations (Nwagbo, 2006).
Many educational studies have explored the effectiveness of scientific inquiry
teaching on learner performance (Furtak, 2006). Schwarz and Gwekwerere (2006) stated
that inquiry practices are very important in terms of forming scientific knowledge. The
authors also found that pre-service teachers who experienced guided inquiry and modeling
as part of the instructional framework improved their prior ideas of science teaching and
felt that the course had increased their knowledge on how to teach science. Similarly,
Nugent et al. (2008) found that field-based inquiry-focused models significantly improved
 Özdilek &Bulunuz / TÜFED-TUSED/ 6(2) 2009 27

pre-service teachers’ use of cooperative learning strategies, deep learning, and confidence
in teaching science. Also, Akerson, Hanson, and Cullen (2007) stated that guided inquiry
was effective in improving most secondary teachers’ views of nature of science.
In various research studies about guided inquiry teaching practices, the participants
specifically noted that working as a group has very crucial role in addition to gaining
effective results and understanding (Deckert, Nestor & DiLullo, 1998; Farrell, Moog &
Spencer, 1999). In the study conducted by Farrell et al., (1999), half of the students stated
that one of the strengths of this guided inquiry is to use of groups in developing learning
and understanding, and for teaching. Thus, these contributions of guided inquiry practices
are very critical for some teachers teach science to elementary students more often and
effectively than others (Plourde, 2002).
There are, therefore, several studies that provide evidence as to the varied benefits of
using a guided inquiry approach in pre-service instruction. Those benefits may either be
offset or augmented by the effect that guided inquiry instruction has on pre-service
teachers’ science teaching self-efficacy beliefs. This study aims to determine the effect of
a guided inquiry on pre-service elementary teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs in science
teaching.
The following research questions were investigated:
1. What is the effect of a guided inquiry used in science laboratory course on pre-
service elementary teachers’ science teaching personal efficacy and outcome expectancy
beliefs?
2. What are the pre-service teachers’ opinions about their personal teaching and
outcome expectations in science teaching after completing their science laboratory course?

METHODOLOGY
A mixed method approach was used in this study that included a pretest-posttest
one group model and semi-structured focus group discussions. The study was conducted
with three classes of pre-service teachers who were registered in a science laboratory
course during the daytime in the 2008 Spring semester. In the study, it was not compared
whether or not the guided inquiry teaching method was more effective than any other
methodology. Instead, the focus was on whether or not the pre-service teachers improved
their sense of science teaching self-efficacy beliefs after they took science laboratory
course in their second year in the program. To develop a method that is compatible with
past research in this area, the authors used several attributes of other studies, modifying
them to fit the present context. Therefore, these studies, which focused on different aspects
of science teacher self-efficacy, provide a coherent body of literature to which the present
study contributes. Specifically, the authors modified the design used by Palmer (2006),
Plourde (2002), Watters and Ginns (1995), and Wingfield and Ramsey (1999). The result
is a mixed-method design in which data were collected using pre-test and post-tests with
interviews (Palmer, 2006; Watters & Ginns, 1995; Wingfield & Ramsey, 1999) and
written comments on questionnaires (Wingfield & Ramsey, 1999) of pre-service teachers.
Several factors led to the one-group design. First, the use of guided-inquiry
instruction is already considered as the most appropriate approach to science teacher
preparation. Therefore, the goal of the research was to consider whether guided-inquiry
instruction contributes to higher levels of science teaching self-efficacy when it is
determined a priori to be the instructional approach of choice. There is, so to speak, no
acceptable alternative approach to the guided-inquiry approach. However, were the results
of this study to demonstrate that guided-inquiry instruction undermines science teacher
self-efficacy beliefs, there would be cause to more seriously consider alternative
approaches. Further, the one-group design was used in response to the practical reality that
 Özdilek &Bulunuz / TÜFED-TUSED/ 6(2) 2009 28

students in the sample were in the position to interact and communicate extensively
throughout the term of the project as they work together on assignments in shared classes
and across classes. These interactions would present an extraneous variable that could not
be controlled. That is, students in one group could potentially affect the science self-
efficacy of students in the other groups by sharing experiences that either encouraged or
discouraged the other pre-service teachers’ self efficacy believes. More specifically with
respect to the potential influence of their ongoing communication during the study, the
pre-service teachers had many opportunities to share the theoretical knowledge they
collected for their activity report sheets.
As part of the data collection, focus group interviews were used in order to gather
more detailed information about whether or not exposure to a guided-inquiry teaching
method improved their self-efficacy beliefs after completing the science laboratory course.
Data collected by using the STEBI instrument (Science Teaching Efficacy Belief
Instrument) was used in coordination with the focus group interviews.

a) Participants
This study was conducted with the second year students in their fourth semester at
the elementary teacher training program at Uludağ University in the city of Bursa in the
academic year 2007-2008. There were 30 (29.7%) male and 71 (70.3%) female pre-service
teachers. These participants were selected using purposive sampling on the basis of
convenience. Although 123 students were registered for this course, only 101 participated
in the study. Because some of the participants did not attend that particular class, not all of
them completed both pre and post STEBI instruments data. However, all of the
participants reflected a willingness to participate. The pre-service teachers were aged
between 19 and 23 years, and 93% of them came from a mathematics and literacy
background.

b) Description of Science Laboratory Course

The course entitled Science Laboratory is one of the required courses in the second
year and fourth semester of the elementary teacher training program. The suggested
teaching time for the course is 14 weeks, and the presumed time for the course instruction
is one theoretical and two application lessons for a total of 3 hours per week. The science
laboratory course is the participants’ first required practical science course in the program.
The reason for this is that the course provides an opportunity to put into practice
participants’ knowledge from previous theoretical science courses, such as general
chemistry, basic physics, environment, and life-sciences. Therefore, the participants were
very active as groups during the class time while they were engaging the activities that
assigned. The students were required to take a midterm and final exam to pass the course
in addition to the scores they took from the activity reports.

c) Content of Instruction
At the beginning of the semester the participants were in permanent self-selected
groups of four or five. One of the classes was taught by the first author, and the other two
taught by the second author. Both authors followed exactly the same guided inquiry
instruction procedures. For example, the same hands-on activities and theoretical
information were applied during the class period. The instructors introduced and explained
to their students how to fill out activity report sheets. It was required that participants
investigate the theoretical background knowledge about each particular activity of the
 Özdilek &Bulunuz / TÜFED-TUSED/ 6(2) 2009 29

following weeks. The pre-service teachers collected theoretical background knowledge

either from a library or Internet as groups and recorded this information into the related
section of their activity report sheets. In addition, the researchers checked whether or not
students had completed this requirement at the beginning of each class period.
As discussed earlier, the current study used a guided inquiry, as an instruction
method for pre-service teachers. For this purpose, a lesson plan based on this method was
adapted from Martin (1997), where 12 steps were proposed in the lesson plan for
elementary science lessons. Instead, 8 of them were used and reorganized for the level of
second year pre-service elementary teachers. These steps were as follows:
1. What do I want participants to discover: It was determined that participants were
expected to interpret the results of each hands-on activity by using their theoretical
knowledge and the data they collected.
2. Scientific processes addressed: At the beginning of each class period, one-hour
theoretical instruction about each science process skill was explained by the researchers in
detail. These science process skills were observing, measuring, inferring, predicting,
communicating, defining operationally, identifying and controlling variables, formulating
hypotheses, collecting data, and experimenting.
3. Description of introductory activity: Before the pre-service teachers started to
practice hands-on activities in the application period, detailed information on directions
and safety rules about activities were presented by the instructors.
4. Materials needed: Necessary materials were provided to the groups at the
beginning of the application period.
5. Detailed procedural information about activities: Some details were explained,
such as what the participants would practice, how they would collect data, organize the
data, draw a graph, and interpret the graphs.
6. Typical discussion questions: Groups were asked typical questions to stimulate
their thinking toward the activity objective. For example, what would happen if you
increased the number of paper clips attached to the tail of a paper helicopter? And, what
would affect the flying time of the paper helicopter?
7. Application to real life situations: After participants completed the hands-on
activities, they were asked, “what if type” questions that would help them apply the
knowledge they gained to real life situations. For example, during the activity of
“observing yeast under the microscope” the question would have been “Why do you think
bread dough rises when you added sugar and warm water into the dry yeast?” Or, for the
“let’s make a siphon activity; one would ask, “Have you ever thought how your siphon
works in your bathroom?”
8. Expected conclusions: Participants reported their interpretations of hands-on
activities and conclusions in their activity report sheets by using theoretical background
knowledge they collected at the beginning. Group members shared responsibilities during
the process of filling out activity report sheets. While one group member was reporting the
information, other members helped each other organize the final conclusions and
comments.
Groups submitted the sheets to the course instructor at the end of the each class
period. All groups in three classes completed 9 chemistry, 8 biology, and 17 physics
activities in the science laboratory course throughout the semester. Approximately, 2-3
activities were carried out per class time in all three groups. For the examples of physics,
chemistry and biology experiments please see Appendix.
 Özdilek &Bulunuz / TÜFED-TUSED/ 6(2) 2009 30

d) Data Sources
In this study, data was gathered from two main sources: STEBI (Self-Efficacy
Beliefs Instrument) and focus group interviews. Detailed information about the data
collection tool and interviews are presented below.

Self-Efficacy Beliefs Instrument: This instrument developed by Enochs and Riggs

(1990) was applied as pre and posttest to determine participants’ levels of self-efficacy
beliefs to make sure if there is a difference between before and after instruction. STEBI
included two scales designed for pre-service teachers: (1) personal science teaching
efficacy belief scale (13 items for self-efficacy determination) and (2) science teaching
outcome expectancy scale (10 items for outcome expectancy dimension). The
questionnaire was composed of 23 five choice, Likert-type questions. Alpha reliability
coefficients of the self-efficacy dimension and outcome expectancy dimension were found
to be 0.90 and 0.76 respectively.
The Turkish adaptation and validation of the instrument was carried out by Bıkmaz
(2004). Bıkmaz (2004) found the coefficient for the 13-item science teaching efficacy
belief scale was found to be 0.78 while the alpha for the 7-item science teaching outcome
expectancy scale was found to be 0.60. For the first dimension, she found construct
validity accounted for 18.87% and for the second dimension 11.22% of the variance. A
20-Likert-type scale was composed of 11 positively and 9 negatively written questions.
Each item was responded to using a scale of 1-5 (1=strongly disagree; 2= disagree; 3=
uncertain; 4= agree; and 5= strongly agree).
In this scale for the first dimension (self–efficacy), possible overall scores could
range from 13 to 65 and for the second dimension (outcome expectancies), from 7 to 35.
According to this scale, a personal science teaching efficacy belief dimension was
evaluated according to the 13-65 level (1=Poor, if the item’s mean score ranged from
13.00 to 23.40; 2= Weak, if the item’s mean score ranged from 23.53 to 33.80; 3= Neutral,
if the item’s mean score ranged from 33.99 to 44.20; 4= Good, if the item’s mean score
ranged from 44.33 to 54.60; and 5=Excellent, if the item’s mean score ranged from 54.79
to 65.00). Similarly by using this scale, the science teaching outcome expectancy
dimension was judged. according to the 7-35 level (1=Poor, if the item’s mean score
ranged from 7.00 to 12.60; 2= Weak, if the item’s mean score ranged from 12.67 to18.20;
3= Neutral, if the item’s mean score ranged from 18.27 to 23.80; 4= Good, if the item’s
mean score ranged from 23.87 to 29.40; and 5= Excellent, if the item’s mean score ranged
from 29.47 to 35.00).

Focus Group Interviews: At the end of the instruction, 10 groups of students were
randomly chosen out of 26 groups for additional discussions. This method was used for
two reasons: first, the participants carried out hands-on activities as groups during the
semester, and secondly, it was believed that in addition to the quantitative data, opinions
and perceptions of the participants should quite valuable for the focus of investigation,
yielding useful information about their science teaching self-efficacy beliefs as it was
mentioned before.
Focus group interviews were carried out by two researchers with one group at a time
in a quiet place of the department. The researchers took turns and asked specifically two
questions to each group:
1. Do you think that there is a difference between your self-efficacy beliefs in
teaching science before and after you took this course?
2. How do you think you will use the knowledge you have gained from this course
in future?
 Özdilek &Bulunuz / TÜFED-TUSED/ 6(2) 2009 31

The authors asked the questions to whole groups. Students, who had answers to
these questions, shared their ideas. In other words, not every student in the groups had to
answer each question. However, these other students stated whether or not they agreed to
their group mates’ ideas. A digital camera was used to record answers and to transcribe the
collected data. Each group interview took approximately 20-25 minutes.

e) Data Analysis
Quantitative data were analyzed by using paired sample t-test with an SPSS 16.00
program at the .01 significance level. In order to analyze the qualitative data from focus
group interviews, a constant comparison method (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Strauss &
Corbin, 1990) was used. After the pre-service teachers’ answers were transcribed by the
first author, the second author read all the answers as a whole and ensured whether or not
questions were understood correctly. Then, the author highlighted the sentences that
specifically included meaningful answer to each question. The related answers were
classified and copied into another word document, and organized according to each
question. By doing this, the researcher determined the illustrative quotations from each
group’s answers under each question. For some cases, there was more than one quotation
that might have been appropriate for inclusion in this paper. If so, the researcher read these
quotations many times and chose the clearest ones as the illustrative examples from
student group answers. Each participant’s answers were read many times until no more
additional information emerged from their responses.

FINDINGS
a) Quantitative Findings of STEBI
For the first research questions, descriptive statistics involving means and standard
deviations were used to determine science teaching self-efficacy beliefs levels and a paired
sample t-test was used to determine whether there was a statistically significant difference
between the pre and posttest results. The results according to the instrument’s dimensions
are presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for Pre and Posttest Scores

Self-efficacy belief dimensions N Mean SD Level
Pre-self-efficacy dimension 101 44.33 4.99 Good
Post-self-efficacy dimension 101 49.36 5.27 Good
Pre-outcome expectancy dimension 101 22.92 2.74 Neutral
Post-outcome expectancy dimension 101 25.78 2.41 Good

These results indicated that participants’ pretest (x= 44.33) and posttest (x= 49.36)
self-efficacy means were found to be at an good level when considering that possible
overall scores could range from 13 to 65 for the self-efficacy dimension. However, while
the pretest outcome expectancy mean results (x= 22.92) are at the neutral level, posttest
(x=25.78) results are found in good level (possible scores 7-35). As it is seen in Table 1
posttest scores for both self-efficacy and outcome expectancy dimensions were higher than
pretest scores.
The paired sample t- test results revealed that levels of both self-efficacy beliefs
(t(1-100)= -9.84, p<0.01) and outcome expectancy (t (1-100)=-9.18, p<0.01) of the participants’
were significantly higher than the scores before instruction. The results presented in Table
2.
 Özdilek &Bulunuz / TÜFED-TUSED/ 6(2) 2009 32

Table 2. Paired Sample t- test Results

Self-efficacy belief dimensions SD t p
Pre and post test self-efficacy dimension 5.18 -9.84 .00*
Pre and posttest outcome expectancy dimension 3.13 -9.18 .00*
*p<0.01

b) Qualitative Analysis of the Focus Group Interviews

For the second research question the interview data was analyzed qualitatively to
determine pre-service teachers’ ideas and perceptions about self-efficacy and outcome
expectancies in science teaching after they completed the course. In the focus group
interviews, participants were asked if their self-efficacy beliefs were changed positively or
negatively after they completed the science laboratory course. They were also asked how
they would benefit from the guided inquiry practiced in this course when they became in-
service elementary teachers.
Participants’ answers to each question were similar. Descriptive quotations based
on interview questions are also provided for each. The most common themes and
descriptive quotations are summarized in Table 3. In the table all the names of participants
are pseudonyms.
 Özdilek &Bulunuz / TÜFED-TUSED/ 6(2) 2009 33

Table 3. Most Common Themes and Descriptive Quotes of Pre-service Teachers as Extracted
from the Interviews

Q1. Do you think that there is a difference in your self-efficacy beliefs in teaching science before and
after you took this course?

The most common answer Descriptive Quote

I did not have any teacher who implemented hands-
1. Did not have any hands-on activity experience in on activities in the science courses in my previous
earlier education years education years. (Bilgen, group 2).

Science was always taught with abstract concepts to

2. Science laboratory course had many hands-on
activities which helped to increase self-efficacy
us. This situation caused negative self-efficacy
beliefs toward science. However, because we
learned science by doing in this course, this helped
us to have meaningful learning and enjoy the course.
(Habibe, group 4).

I already had a low sense of self-efficacy because of

3. Having mathematics and literacy background that
caused a sense of low self-efficacy in teaching
science.
having a mathematics and literacy background. The
courses like physics and chemistry were always very
abstract areas for me. But this course was very
helpful because we practiced the activities. Before I
took this course I had some concerns about teaching
science, but I believe that I can be capable from now
on. (Duygu, group 4)

I have a science background from high school. In

4. In spite of having knowledge of science concepts,
still have a low sense of self-efficacy before they took
this course.
fact I was thinking that I had enough science
background to teach science. But when I learned
what I needed to know, I understood that I did not
have a strong background. I did not know how to
teach science to children. In this course I learned
how to make hands-on activities for children.
(Tuğçe, group 3).

I definitely have benefited from this course. I was

5. Positive change after the course. Changing of thinking that I can not teach science to students any
feelings from being incapable to teach science to more. I think I can. (Zuhal, group 8).
students to more sufficient at the end.

Q2. How do you think that you will use the knowledge you have gained from this course?
The most common answer Descriptive Quote
The activities we implemented in this course can
easily be remembered when we become teachers.
They are not difficult. Therefore, I think I can
1. Hands-on activities practiced in the course were practice these activities with my students when I
not difficult. They can be practiced with students. became a real teacher. For example, the paper
helicopter activity was both fun and interesting to
practice with kids. (Gamze, group 1)
I believe that this course will be very helpful in the
future. Abstract concepts became more meaningful
2. Abstract concepts was changed in this course. We also can find other activities for
our students. (Özlem, group 2)
 Özdilek &Bulunuz / TÜFED-TUSED/ 6(2) 2009 34

Table 3. Continued…
3. Learning by doing was helpful for implementing
the same activities with elementary students.
Because we learned by doing, I am assuming that we
can not forget these ideas easily. I believe that these
activities would be very effective for elementary
students. (Behiye, group 3)

We may not have a lot of materials in schools to

4. Teaching science is not always expensive!
teach science. But, some activities we learned in this
course do not really require expensive materials to
teach some concepts. For example, for the paper
helicopter activity, we will only need a piece of
paper and paper clips. Also, for Bernoulli principle
activities, we will need ping-pong balls, paper, and a
plastic tube, etc. (Mehmet, group 5)

I think I can implement the activities we learned in

5. Definite willingness to teach science with the
hands-on activities practiced in this course.
this class with my students. Everything was visual in
this class. I liked these activities. I would practice
them in my own class. I am sure kids would love
them.
(Hasan, group 7)

I definitely have learned how important making

6. Learning importance of making hands-on hands-on activities and experiments are to students
activities and experiments in this course. in science. (Gönül, group 9)

The activities we practiced were all fun. I think these

7. Willingness to practice guided inquiry caused
meaningful learning of abstract concepts
activities will get students’ attention in science
classes. I believe I can practice the same method [a
guided inquiry] in my own classroom. In addition,
these are the activities that help meaningful learning
of some difficult to learn concepts. Therefore, I
would like to repeat the same activities in my
science class with my students. (Beyhan, group 6).

DISCUSSION and CONCLUSION

In the current study, a guided inquiry, which is one of the factors that have a
potential to increase self-efficacy beliefs of pre-service teachers, was investigated at early
stages of teacher training programs. Prior to the instruction, while the self-efficacy
dimension was at the good and outcome expectancy was in neutral level, at the end of 14
weeks of instruction, both dimensions were at the good level. Also, the findings of paired
samples t-tests analysis showed that participants’ scores of both self-efficacy beliefs and
outcome expectancy were significantly higher than pretest scores.
In addition, focus group interviews show that almost all of the participants had a low
sense of self-efficacy beliefs in teaching science before they took the course. Several
reasons were reported in focus group interviews by pre-service teachers. Participants
stated that they had a limited number of science related courses they took in their high
school years. Even some of the pre-service teachers who have science backgrounds in high
school said that science was taught in a theoretical way instead of using hands-on
practical/experimental activities. Participants also mentioned that the number of hands-on
activities they experienced in their previous years was not sufficient; or, they thought these
activities were not successful in terms of meaningful learning.
Participants stated that they were satisfied taking a science laboratory class this
semester, since they practiced many hands-on activities based on a guided inquiry and this
 Özdilek &Bulunuz / TÜFED-TUSED/ 6(2) 2009 35

caused meaningful learning of abstract concepts and enjoyment. They also said that they
might practice these activities with their students in the future, since their self-efficacy
beliefs in science teaching increased. They specifically pointed out that they would not
hesitate to repeat similar science activities when they became in-service teachers. They
believed that they could practice many activities by using cheap and simple materials
easily found in their school environments. Participants’ interview answers also showed
that they were willing to practice lesson plans with their own students similar to the plan
they experienced based on a guided inquiry. In this regard, these pre-service teachers can
easily translate their positive experiences to their own students’ learning in future. These
findings are parallel with the suggestions of Bursal (2008) that hands-on science activities
are effective to develop students’ attitudes towards science and science teaching.
Furthermore, the results of this study are consistent with the study conducted by Watters
and Ginns (1995) that negative high school experiences are related to low sense of
personal science teaching self-efficacy and that could be developed if the students could
get support and be engaged in suitable learning environments. Similarly, the sense of
outcome expectancies of pre-service teachers could also be enhanced with successful field
experiences with students in classrooms. Participants stated that they had a low sense of
self-efficacy in teaching science, before took the science laboratory course. However, their
posttest results showed a higher sense of self-efficacy for both dimensions. This finding is
consistent with previous research both by Palmer (2006) and Utley et. al. (2005). It is
thought that using hands-on activities based on a guided inquiry helped them to realize
that they could actually teach science.
In the study the most common answers of participants were consistent with pre-
school teacher candidates’ answers in the study conducted by Vural and Hamurcu (2008).
Their findings indicated that the participants, who were in their first and third years of
teacher training programs, also had a low sense of self-efficacy for teaching science. The
pre-service teachers highlighted several reasons for this. They thought that the number of
science related courses they took in teacher training programs were not sufficient to build
strong science content knowledge. The content of the science methods courses they took
did not include hands-on activities. Therefore, students stated that they really would like to
learn hands-on laboratory procedures in science related courses in teacher preparation
programs. Finally, because teacher candidates come from different high school
backgrounds, the ones who have mathematics and literacy backgrounds might have a
lower sense of self-efficacy compared to the candidates who have science backgrounds
(Vural & Hamurcu, 2008). These reasons are exactly the ones that participants in this
current study mentioned in the focus group interviews.
There are two inconsistencies between the study conducted by Bursal (2008) and the
current study. It was believed that the pre-service teachers’ personal science teaching self-
efficacy beliefs should be determined in early years of teacher training programs. In
addition, unlike the findings of Bursal (2008), Moseley et. al., (2002), and Plourde (2002),
all groups of pre-service teachers improved their scores after guided inquiry was applied in
the science laboratory course.
Consequently, both qualitative and quantitative results of the current study indicated
that pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs could be improved by appropriate teaching
approaches, such as a guided inquiry. However, in our study it was found that the posttest
results of participants were not at excellent level. Therefore, science methods courses and
field experiences in the third and fourth years of teacher training program appear to be
significantly important for achieving better outcomes of self- efficacy beliefs in science
teaching.
 Özdilek &Bulunuz / TÜFED-TUSED/ 6(2) 2009 36

The current study suggests that focus group interviews provided a window into pre-
service teachers’ personal ideas about experiencing a guided inquiry with various science
activities in their science method courses. In addition to using the measurement tool
(STEBI), interviews helped the researchers to triangulate the data. The quantitative and
qualitative elements provided mutually supporting evidence in this study. With only the
quantitative part of the study the researchers would not have had an opportunity to fully
understand participants’ ideas about the science laboratory course. Conversely, with only
the qualitative part of the study, they could not have learned whether or not pre-service
teachers improved their sense of self-efficacy beliefs in teaching science after they took
this course.
In this study, the level of self-efficacy beliefs of pre-service teachers in science
teaching was investigated in the second year of their teacher training programs, which is
earlier than many previous studies did. This provides a diagnostic tool for determining
what should be changed in their subsequent courses to improve students’ likelihood of
success in their future teaching careers. Then, a guided inquiry was practiced in their
science laboratory course where the lesson plan proposed by Martin (1997) for elementary
science lessons was adapted to Turkish context. However, in the current study this new
adapted lesson plan was practiced for Turkish elementary pre-service teachers in a science
laboratory course. It is hoped that the way the lesson plan used in this study can increase
the sense of self-efficacy beliefs of pre-service teachers in science teaching. For this
reason, it is recommended that more research is needed to determine the effects of a
guided inquiry on pre-service teachers’ science teaching self-efficacy beliefs.

SUGGESTIONS
It is appear that in order to teach science effectively, elementary school teachers
need to have a high sense of self-efficacy beliefs. To accomplish this goal, science course
instructors for teacher training programs should adopt a guided inquiry in their science
laboratory courses and into real classroom situations for improved the pre-service
teachers’ sense of self-efficacy beliefs in science teaching. It is obvious that as in-service
teachers of future, current pre-service teachers should practice this type of methods in their
teacher training programs.
Longitudinal studies are also needed to determine whether or not these same
participants’ self-efficacy beliefs change after they take a science methods course in their
third year and then after two years of teaching. Because the science methods course is
quite important for them to learn many methodologies in teaching science, the effect of
this course could be significant for increasing self-efficacy beliefs and ultimately,
improved student learning of science. Or, even in their fourth year, one could look at the
effect in their field experiences in terms of their performance in teaching science.
 Özdilek &Bulunuz / TÜFED-TUSED/ 6(2) 2009 37

REFERENCES

Akbaş, A., & Çelikkaleli, Ö. (2006). Sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının fen öğretimi öz-yeterlik
inançlarının cinsiyet, öğrenim türü ve üniversitelere göre incelenmesi. Mersin
Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 2(1), 98–110.
Akerson, V.L., Hanson, D. L., & Cullen, T. A. (2007). The influence of guided inquiry
and explicit instruction on K-6 teachers’ views of nature of science. Journal of
Science Teacher Education, 18, 751-772.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84, 191–215.
Bandura, A. (1981). Self-referent thought: A development analysis of self-efficacy. In J.H.
Flavell & L. Ross (Eds.), Social cognitive development: Frontiers and possible
futures (pp. 200- 239). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bandura, A. (1986) Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman and
Co.
Bencze, L., & Upton, L. (2006). Being your own role model for improving self-efficacy:
An elementary teacher self-actualizes through drama-based science teaching.
Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education, 6(3), 207-
226.
Bıkmaz, F. H. (2004) Sınıf öğretmenlerinin fen öğretiminde özyeterlik inancı ölçeğinin
geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 161. Retrieved January 10,
2008, from http://yayim.meb.gov.tr/dergiler/161/bikmaz.htm
Bursal, M. (2008). Changes in Turkish pre-service elementary teachers’ personal science
teaching efficacy beliefs and science anxieties during a science methods course.
Journal of Turkish Science education, 5(1), 99-112.
Camgöz, S. M., & Tektaş, Ö.Ö. (2008). Academic attributional style, self-efficacy and
gender: A cross-cultural comparison. Social Behavior and Personality, 36 (1), 97–
114.
Deckert, A.A., & Nestor, L.P. (1998). An example of a guided-inquiry, collaborative
physical chemistry laboratory course. Journal of Chemical Education, 75(7), 860-
863.
Enochs, L.G., & Riggs, I.M. (1990). Further development of an elementary science
teaching efficacy belief instrument: A pre-service elementary scale. School Science
and Mathematics, 90(8), 694–706.
Farrell, J.J., Moog, R.S., & Spencer, J.N. (1999). A guided inquiry general chemistry
course. Journal of Chemical Education. 76(4), 570-574.
Flick, L. (1990). Affecting pre-service elementary teachers’ attitudes toward inquiry
teaching in science through projects with individual children. Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching,
Atlanta, Georgia.
Furtak, E.M. (2006). The Problem with Answers: An exploration of guided scientific
inquiry teaching. Science Education, 90(3), 453-467.
Housego, B.E.J. (1992). Monitoring student teachers’ feelings of preparedness to teach,
personal teaching efficacy, and teaching efficacy in a new secondary teacher
education program. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 18(1), 49-64.
 Özdilek &Bulunuz / TÜFED-TUSED/ 6(2) 2009 38

Jarrett, O.S. (1999). Science interest and confidence among pre-service elementary
teachers. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 11, 47-57.
Ketelhut, D.J. (2007). The impact of student self-efficacy on scientific inquiry skills: An
exploratory investigation in River city, a multi-user virtual environment. Journal of
Science Education and Technology, 16(1), 99-111.
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalist inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Martin, D.J. (1997). Elementary Science Methods: A Constructivist Approach. USA:
Delmar Publishers.
Morrell, P., & Carroll, J. (2003). An extended examination of pre-service elementary
teachers' science teaching self-efficacy. School Science & Mathematics, 103(5),
246-251.
Moseley, C., Reinke, K., & Bookout, V. (2002). The effect of teaching outdoor
environmental education on pre-service teachers’ attitudes toward self-efficacy and
outcome expectancy. The Journal of Environmental Education, 34(1), 9-15.
Nugent, G., Kunz, G., Levy, R., Harwood, D., & Calson, D. (2008). The impact of a field-
based, inquiry focused model of instruction on pre-service teachers’ science
learning and attitudes. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 12 (2), 1-18.
Nwagbo, C. (2006). Effects of two teaching methods on the achievement in and attitude to
biology of students of different levels of scientific literacy. International Journal of
Educational Research, 45 (3), 216-229.
Palmer, D. (2006). Durability of changes in self-efficacy of pre-service primary teachers.
International Journal of Science Education, 28(6), 655-671.
Pajares, M.F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy
Construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307-332.
Pedersen, J.E., & McCurdy, D.W. (1992). The effects of Hands-on, Minds-on teaching
experiences on attitudes of pre-service elementary teachers. Science Education,
76(2), 141-146.
Plourde, L.A. (2002). The influence of student teaching on pre-service elementary
teachers' science self-efficacy and outcome expectancy beliefs. Journal of
Instructional Psychology, 29(4), 245-252.
Rimm-Kaufman, S. E. & Sawyer, B. E. (2004). Primary-grade teachers' self-efficacy
beliefs, attitudes toward teaching, and discipline and teaching practice priorities in
relation to the responsive classroom approach. Elementary School Journal, 104(4),
321-341.
Schoon, K.J., & Boone, W.J. (1998). Self-efficacy and alternative conceptions of science
of pre-service elementary teachers. Science Education, 82(5), 553-568.
Schwarz, C.V., & Gwekwerere Y. N. (2006). Using a guided inquiry and modeling
instructional framework (EIMA) to support K-8 science teaching. Retrieved
from,www.interscience.wiley.com
Strauss, A.L., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory
procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, Ca: Sage.
Tosun, T. (2000). The beliefs of pre-service elementary teachers toward science and
science teaching. School Science and Mathematics, 100(7), 374-384.
Utley, J., Moseley, C., & Bryant, R. (2005). Relationship between science and
mathematics teaching efficacy of pre-service elementary teachers. School Science
and Mathematics, 105(2), 40-45.
 Özdilek &Bulunuz / TÜFED-TUSED/ 6(2) 2009 39

Vural, D.E., & Hamurcu, H. (2008). Okul öncesi öğretmen adaylarının fen öğretimi
dersine yönelik öz-yeterlik inançları ve görüşleri. Elementary Education Online,
7(2), 456-467.
Watters, J.J., & Ginns, I.S. (1995). Origins of, and changes in pre-service teachers’
scienceteaching self-efficacy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National
Association for research in Science Teaching (NARST), San Francisco, CA.
Weinburgh, M. (2007). The effect of obscures on elementary pre-service teachers’ content
knowledge, attitudes, and self efficacy. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18,
801-815.
Wingfield, M.E., & Ramsey, J. (1999). Improving science teaching self-efficacy of
elementary pre-service teachers, Retrieved February 20, 2009, from
http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/1
6/70/95.pdf.
Yılmaz-Tüzün, Ö., & Topçu, M.S. (2008). Relationships among pre-service science
teachers’ epistemological beliefs, epistemological world views, and self-efficacy
beliefs. International Journal of Science Education, 30(1), 65-85.
 Özdilek &Bulunuz / TÜFED-TUSED/ 6(2) 2009 40

APPENDIX

I. AN EXAMPLE OF PHYSICS ACTIVITY

HOW THE HEIGHT OF INCLINED PLANE AFFECTS

WEIGHT OF AN OBJECT?
GOAL
To develop an understanding of how the height of inclined plane affects the weight of object read
from dynamometer.

MATERIALS
• Board to make an inclined plane (approximately 15 cm width)
• A wooden block
• Books (to prop board)
• A dynamometer
• A piece of rope
• A ruler

FOCUSING QUESTIONS
1. Why do we feel tired while we are climbing a ramp?
2. Do you know what simple machines are?
3. Why do you think we prefer to use simple machines in our daily lives?
4. Why do we prefer to use an inclined plane when we want to lift up heavy weights from the
ground? Could you give any examples from your own experiences?

PROCEDURE
1. Make an inclined plane by using three or four books and a board and measure the height with a
ruler.
2. Weight the wooden block with a dynamometer in the air and record the value.
3. Tie a piece of rope to the wooden block, attach them on a dynamometer, and pull them along the
inclined plane.
4. Read the value of the dynamometer while you are pulling the objects on the inclined plane and
compare the second value with the first one.
5. Repeat the steps for up to 5, 6, or 7 books in height for the inclined plane. Re-measure the
heights every time when you increase. Record the new weight values once to read dynamometer
after each try.

EVALUATION QUESTIONS
1. What were the dependent, independent, and constant variables for this experiment?
2. Is there any differences between the values you read from the dynamometer in the air and on the
ramp?
3. What happened to the weight of the wooden block as the ramp got steeper? Which one did take
more effort to move?
4. Have you seen that an inclined plane helped to make your job easier as a simple machine?
5. What kind of gain did you have when you used inclined plane?
 Özdilek &Bulunuz / TÜFED-TUSED/ 6(2) 2009 41

II. AN EXAMPLE OF CHEMISTRY ACTIVITY

CHARLES’ LAW

GOAL
To determine how the volume of a gas changes when the temperature changes.

MATERIALS
• Beaker
• Thermometer
• 5 milliliter Syringe
• Hot plate
• Clamp
• Clay

FOCUSING QUESTIONS
1. How temperature does affect the kinetic energy of gas molecules?
2. Please state dependent, independent, and constant variables for this experiment.

PROCEDURE
1. Add enough water in a beaker to prepare a water bath.
2. Fill the syringe until two milliliter with air and close tightly tip of syringe with clay.
3. Put the syringe to the water bath. Clamp the syringe in a beaker of water set up to be
heated
4. First, measure the temperature of the water. (This temperature should be the temperature
of the gas inside the syringe).
5. Start heating water bath and measure and record volume of air in syringe up to 90 oC.

EVALUATION QUESTIONS
1. Graph your results by using volume of air and the temperature (oC) as variables.
2. How would you evaluate your graph?
2. Using your graph, how do you think volume and temperature of a gas related?
3. What is the effect of the temperature on the volume?
4. What is the V/T ratio every time when you change the temperature?
5. Have you been able to prove the Charles Law with this experiment?
 Özdilek &Bulunuz / TÜFED-TUSED/ 6(2) 2009 42

III. AN EXAMPLE OF BIOLOGY ACTIVITY

WHICH GAS IS BREATH OUT DURING RESPIRATION?

GOAL
To determine which gas do green plants breathe out after respiration.

MATERIALS
• Germinated green peas
• Erlenmeyer's balloon with wide mouth (500 ml)
• A test tube
• Glass tube
• Plastic corks with two holes (they need to be fit into 500 ml Erlenmeyer’s balloon)
• Funnel
• Drinking straw
• Clamp
• Chalky water

FOCUSING QUESTIONS
1. Do you think green plants breathe?
2. Should we keep green plants during the daytime in the living room? Why?
3. Should we keep green plants during the nighttime in the bedroom? Why?

PROCEDURE

1. Put germinated green peas in one of the 500 ml Erlenmeyer’s balloons (approximately one third
of erlen’s volume)
2. Fill the test tube with tap water.
3. Close one hole of the cork with clamp. Make sure there is a funnel at the top of the clamp. 4.
Place the apparatus to a dark environment
5. Wait one week and replace the tap water with chalky water.
6. Open the clamp of the funnel and add some tap water into the funnel slowly.
7. Observe the changes of the color of the chalky water.
8. Breathe out into chalky water which is found in another test tube.

EVALUATION QUESTIONS
1. What happened to the chalky water?
2. What does the reaction indicates?
3. Which gas do you think is collected from the test tube? And why?
4. Which life event was proved in this experiment?